[quote]Professor X wrote:
Also, CGI Arnold was done extremely well and I dare someone to find a better full human CGI creation that looks more realistic. They made him look like he just rolled off the assembly line (looking like 1985 Arnold).[/quote]
Yep, they really pushed existing technology to the limits with ‘Arnold CGnegger’. Even though he didn’t look quite as convincing on the big screen, what you said was totally on the money. What they achieved was far, far more impressive than other attempts at a humanoid character to date (the effects in the newest Hulk movie were disappointing in comparison).
You could say they did too good a job, because people will be expecting a similar appearance in future installments. There is a rumor floating around the net that McG plans to bring the story full circle by remaking the original movie.
That could be a very interesting idea, because it was established in T:S that John Connor had the foreknowledge and determination to change the events in T1 if he chose to. If McG is planning to take the franchise along an alternate timeline (a sort of ‘what if’ scenario), It’d actually go a long way to restore my faith in Hollywood via some extremely original, out-of-the-box thinking.
Imagine Connor sending Kyle Reese back in time to 1984, having given him specific instructions on how and where to find Marcus…
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Also, CGI Arnold was done extremely well and I dare someone to find a better full human CGI creation that looks more realistic. They made him look like he just rolled off the assembly line (looking like 1985 Arnold).[/quote]
Just because everything was good up until the last 10 minutes doesn’t excuse what happened. Went from a Solid B+ to a C or C-. Maybe not that bad but geez the last thing you want is for the audience to leave with a bad taste in their mouth. If you are going to fuck up do it in the beginning or in the middle so you can redeem yourself. I know this movie was fiction but it is supposed to be plausible (bound by realistic criteria) and I just don’t see how you get stabbed through the middle of your chest by a metal pipe and survive.
For fucks sake you’d have the inside area of the pipe filled with your bone and flesh. How are you going to put that back together? I’ll tell you how by using a cyborg’s heart and an open air tent in the desert for your E.R. that’s how. That light tech better not fuck up the next movie.
[quote]horsepuss wrote:
John Conner playing welcome to the jungle while rangling that motorcycle (same song him and that red head kid were playing while riding johns dirtbike around in T2.[/quote]
Not to be nit-picking, but the song is You Could Be Mine.
I was a huge Terminator fan until this one. I barely tolerated 3, but this movie had me shaking my head. I saw the first two in the theater btw. Go back to the first. Yes, he did kill very quickly. Technoir, bill Paxton’s character, the police station. He was the good ole unstoppable killing machine.
No screwing around. Remember the stuff the Kyle Reese character said?
T2, again Robert Patrick’s terminator killed as quick as possible. Remember the chase scenes. He was trying to end it then.
This one, oh lord. They took the characters from my favorite sci fi action movie series ever and just torpedoed it. Open heart surgery in a desert. Come on, things have to work in the universe you have created. Guess people don’t get infections the the future, or even dust in wounds.No adhesions are going to happen here.
I hold the terminator stuff to a higher standard than Ninja Assassin for example.
Since this thread has been brought back up again, (and for anyone who might care) the latest is the Terminator franchise was up for sale which has since closed for bids. So there may/may not be a continuation.
I’ll try to make my take a little clearer. i just expect more from a Terminator movie than this delivered. this is not a run of the mill action flick that I’ll see because it has robots, guns, and explosions.
For example, I liked GI Joe, but didn’t think it was a very good movie. It was fun. Terminator is held to a different standard by me and this disappointed me, hence the it sucked.
Very entertaining but if you start appplying reality to it, it doesn’t work, eg, like the 50 foot tall robot that just appears without anyone noticing. Sometimes the phony shit pulls you out of the movie.
eg - I was wondering why the dudes were using what appeared to be a WW2 U-boat.
Dude throws a tire-iron at a flying thing during one chase and just nails it.
In every movie why the fuck do you hear the sound of weapons being cocked when in reality they should already be cocked?
And like someone else mentioned - why the fuck does the Terminator throw you around and not just rip your head off?!
[quote]GhorigTheBeefy wrote:
I know this movie was fiction but it is supposed to be plausible (bound by realistic criteria) and I just don’t see how you get stabbed through the middle of your chest by a metal pipe and survive.
For fucks sake you’d have the inside area of the pipe filled with your bone and flesh. How are you going to put that back together? I’ll tell you how by using a cyborg’s heart and an open air tent in the desert for your E.R. that’s how. That light tech better not fuck up the next movie.[/quote]
As entertainment it worked but we could have a whole other thread about REALISM in movies.
Most Hollywood movies are made for people with a 7th grade intelligence.
When people start debating the realism of the heart surgery or whatever, I sincerely question their intelligence.
Because it’s a fucking movie about robots. A post-apocalyptic future where machines rule the world and create human-hunting robots is believable, but the smaller details are just to much to accept.
In T3, we learned Skynet had no central core. Rather it was dispersed among computers all through the Internet, including in college dorms and so forth.
So after Skynet had blown the world all to hell with nuclear weapons, how did those computers remain powered?
And how did they get connected to equipment with enough manufacturing capability, in such a manner that human hands, deliveries by humans, etc were not required, to produce all the things Skynet produced?
But I do think the heart thing was stupid. As suggested it may result from a last-minute rewrite / added shoot, as if it had been planned out in the first place the injury could have been more plausible, such as a simple stabbing.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
And how did they get connected to equipment with enough manufacturing capability, in such a manner that human hands, deliveries by humans, etc were not required, to produce all the things Skynet produced?[/quote]
Easy answer here. Remember a Steven King flick/book called “Maximum Overdrive”? Same principle. (That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.)
[quote]Vicomte wrote:
It’s a movie about fucking robots.
When people start debating the realism of the heart surgery or whatever, I sincerely question their intelligence.
Because it’s a fucking movie about robots. A post-apocalyptic future where machines rule the world and create human-hunting robots is believable, but the smaller details are just to much to accept.
Fuck me.
[/quote]
Bingo. The robot somehow designed to look and sound like an Austrian bodybuilder…you know, so it can blend in…is somehow easy to accept…BUT HEART SURGERY IN A DESERT!!!
The military has equipment to do surgery in a desert. Mind you, that is in the year 2009. I would hope that in the future, we can still do it.
The only thing they fucked up apparently was showing how it can be done to people who aren’t aware.
Unlikely? Of course…but if THAT (the last fucking scene in the whole movie) is what causes you to say it sucked, check your own sanity.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
And how did they get connected to equipment with enough manufacturing capability, in such a manner that human hands, deliveries by humans, etc were not required, to produce all the things Skynet produced?[/quote]
Easy answer here. Remember a Steven King flick/book called “Maximum Overdrive”? Same principle. (That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.)
